Since George has asked for one post about this, here's mine:
1. In case anyone doesn't know why this whole thing came about, it was because ONE guy at NRA who DOESN'T shoot silhouette -- their 4H liason -- decided that changing the rule would allow the 4H kids with their cheapo pcp rifles to be competitive in Sporter...and the committee, out of ignorance, went along with him. (At the time, there was no one on the committee who shot airgun but they felt that that shouldn't deter them from changing the rules without asking for input from any airgun match directors or airgun competitors. If they had, this problem would not exist.) IOW, unlike the accusations that have been leveled about THIS year's change-back, LAST year's rule change WAS 'rammed down our throats by one guy' -- and he doesn't even play the game. Not only that, his whole premise was flawed -- those cheapies never were and never will be able to compete in Sporter as his 'rule change' was supposed to permit them to do. Right there you have a valid reason for throwing the change out and returning to the earlier version of the rule...unless you think that outsiders 'should' be writing your rules for you!
2. I fail to understand the 'We wuz cheated and now we don't have a class to shoot in!' response to the reversion. The pcp guns are fully competitive in Open class, just as they have been for years. Shoot them there. (I'm pretty sure that a guy on the left coast name of Dennis-something ;-) has turned in a 'clean' 60 in a local match with a Walther Hunter and that's tough to improve upon.) The only restriction in the new (old) rule is that Sporter is left to springers -- as it always was. IMO, competing with a full-house pcp gun in Sporter against springers is like riding your Harley in the bicycle portion of an Iron-Man competition and then arguing with those who think you're taking advantage. I doubt that it can be shown that it makes sense to shoot the same course twice (Sporter and Open) with the same gun -- just as most everyone has been doing over the last year -- and call that two different venues. If we're going to do that, we might as well eliminate Sporter and just shoot Open & Target.
3. The comparison to Target is unworkable. AFAIK there are NO top-of-the-line 10M spring guns even being made any more. Moving to the pcp gun there was a no brainer. The high velocity springer, however, is alive and well and in current production -- and available for about 30% of the cost of the Walther Hunter. (It just isn't fully competitive with the recoilless pcp rifle.)
4. The rules committee is not anonymous. Anyone can contact NRA and get their names. (The meetings are even open to the public -- although I think you do have to be a current NRA member. If you want to attend all you have to do is go. Don't expect that you will be given the floor to tie things up -- AFAIK it doesn't work that way.) Frankly, I wouldn't want the job since it's not possible to make everyone happy and there's constant flak. They did screw up last year when they made this Sporter change (and IMO they've now corrected that error) but there's now at least one airgun shooter on the committee and, hopefully, they have learned that, when they don't have anyone who knows the answer, they need to get on the phone to someone who does. I can certainly understand why they don't go out of their way to publish their personal contact information. We've had some pretty juvenile attacks on this board over waaaaaaaaay too many things. They naturally don't want that stuff cluttering up their personal mail. Letters -- or emails -- written to the committee care of the silhouette department all go to them for consideration. That's as it should be. If you want to contact them and make your opinion known, WRITE!
As for competitor meetings at National matches, there's no question that not everyone can attend all those matches. IMO it is also unquestionable that those dedicated enough to the game TO attend those matches should be heard more loudly than people who prefer to stay on the porch and let the big dogs travel...and then complain that no one heard them barking! Life ain't always fair. Either live with it or get off the porch and bark where you can be heard.
5. The idea of a NPRM has been suggested often to NRA. AFAIK ATC has it. IMO we should also -- but the powers that be are not going along with that. If you think it's a good idea (I do) write the committee.
(In my version, proposed rule changes -- other than safety matters -- would be 'proposed' at the annual mtg. They would then be published on the website and in SSUSA and notification sent to all match directors holding matches in that particular venue for dissemination to the competitors. At the NEXT annual mtg, responses would be tallied and the rule would live or die by those responses. IOW, "If you don't vote you don't count!" Also, IMO, proposed changes and votes should be rejected immediately unless they come from someone who can prove that he/she has competed in at least 3 matches within the previous year in EVERY venue affected by that proposal. IOW. DON'T write a proposal for airgun that screws up something in HP and then try to weasel with: "Gee guys, since I don't shoot highpower rifle, I didn't know that would happen!")
6. George's Poll here is a good idea but it's a bit short. (I only see 19 responses.) In addition, polls like this are hardly fail-safe. It's my understanding that the letters/emails to the committee -- which are all that really count -- were decidedly in favor of reverting to the rule as it had been in 2004 and before.
I'm sorry the committee didn't think this one through last year when they screwed up a system that had been working pretty well. I'm glad that they corrected their error. I'm also glad that we've got a new committee member who has lots of airgun experience both as a competitor and a match director. That's my one and only post on this -- as George has requested. I just want to shoot and put this (now corrected) fiasco behind me.
Poll